It is a curious irony that in this moment of history,
when people in a number of countries in the Middle East are agitating
for change from dictatorship to democracy, here in our own country, the
oldest democracy with a written constitution in the world, there is a
movement of the ruling class toward taking more and more power into its
own hands. The flashpoint for this movement? The hot-button issue of our
day: marriage.

The comparison of the Middle East and the United States, though, is just
irony No. 1 among many others in the ongoing saga of the inter-relation
between the marriage issue and democracy. The examples are legion, and
it would not be possible to list all of them here. I will, though, mention
some of the more salient ones.

Hundreds of supporters of traditional marriage line the street across
from the Massachusetts Statehouse in Boston in 2007, urging legislators
to restrict future marriages to the union of one man and one woman.
The same day, the joint Legislature voted 151-45 to kill the amendment.

CNS photo/Gregory L. Tracy,
The Pilot

In an explicit denial of his public duty, the then attorney general of
the state of California (now governor) refused to defend the law of the
state in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case concerning the constitutionality
of Proposition 8. His reason? He is personally opposed to it.

Irony No. 2: after decades of hearing Catholic legislators (whose job,
admittedly, is to make the law, not enforce it) claim that they could
not let their personal views on a public issue (in this case, abortion)
influence their public role, we now have the chief law enforcer in the
state doing exactly that.

When the City Council of Washington, D.C., passed a local ordinance to
allow same-sex “marriage,” the citizens organized to put it
to a vote so they could decide for themselves. The City Council obstructed
them from doing so every step of the way. Bear in mind that the city of
Washington has a very large African-American population.

Fundamental right denied

Thus, irony No. 3: a small group of political elites (almost all of them
white), in a claim to expand rights, deny one of the most fundamental
rights in a constitutional democracy — the right to vote —
to the masses of black citizens.

In an egregious violation of separation of powers, the president of the
United States has ordered the Department of Justice not to defend the
Defense of Marriage Act. (DOMA — passed by an overwhelming majority
with bipartisan support in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton
— preserves the right of the states not to recognize same-sex “marriages”
contracted in other states.) Obama claimed to do so on the basis that
it discriminates against a sexual minority, and is unconstitutional and
irrational.

Sadly, the Department of Justice had already submitted an apparently deliberately
weak defense of DOMA — setting up its being overturned in the courts
— by omitting the one argument that has convinced every court in
which the argument was made: the connection between marriage and the good
of children. For example, this is what Maryland’s high court stated
in a ruling in 2007: “Marriage enjoys its fundamental status due,
in large part, to its link to procreation. This ‘inextricable link’
between marriage and procreation reasonably could support the definition
of marriage as between a man and a woman only, because it is that relationship
that is capable of producing biological offspring of both members.”

This latest decision of our president brings us even more ironies.

A change of course

Irony No. 4: During the presidential campaign, Obama stated that he favored
preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a change
of course, he more recently had said he favors the repeal of DOMA, but
asserts it should be done through the legislative process, not the courts.
Now, he has taken an action that does exactly that, i.e., repeals DOMA
by the decision of a federal court judge.

The affirmation of marriage does not discriminate against anyone and casts
no judgments on how people work out their intimate relationships, but
rather affirms the most fundamental good in any healthy society. But if
we were to admit the argument that it did, it would bring us to irony
No. 5: In the court case challenging the constitutionality of the legislation
that allowed the revival of cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy
that had expired long in the past, the federal district court judge ruled
against the plaintiffs. With regard to the argument that the Church was
targeted, he did not deny this claim (the evidence was apparently too
overwhelming that we were). Rather, he argued that it is not unconstitutional
to target a religious group, as long as their access to worship is not
impeded. Why, then, would it be unconstitutional to target a sexual minority
(which defining marriage in the law does not do, anyway) as long as their
freedom to engage in sexual activity as they choose is not impeded?

Most disturbing of all, irony No. 6: It is not the role of the executive
branch to decide which laws are unconstitutional. That is the exclusive
purview of the courts. The job of the executive branch is to administer
and defend the law of the land. That is why this latest decision of our
president is an egregious violation of the separation of powers.

Avoiding the democratic process

The fact of the matter is, wherever “gay marriage” has become
the law of the land, it has happened in a way that avoids the democratic
process, and sometimes even goes directly against it. On the other hand,
whenever the people have had the chance to vote on marriage, they have
consistently affirmed it. And this, despite the proponents being outspent
(sometimes by huge margins), facing opposition from the cultural elites
and enduring strong media bias. Often this bias is quite blatant, but
sometimes it is subtle. For example, in a recent report on this story
on National Public Radio, the reporter said: “Backers of Prop. 8
say that nearly every time gay marriage has been put on the ballot, voters
rejected it.” The fact is “gay marriage” has never been
put on the ballot. Rather, the traditional definition of marriage has.
Moreover, in the 31 states that put this on the ballot as a constitutional
amendment, voters have approved it 31 times, i.e., not “nearly every
time,” but every time. And this is not counting states where the
people have approved the traditional definition of marriage as a statute.

Cause for concern

Regardless of one’s position on the marriage issue, these and so many
other moves by our public officials should give cause for concern about
the fate of democracy in our country. I urge all of our people to inform
themselves of the facts, to inform their consciences from the natural moral
law and Church teaching — understanding that marriage is not discrimination
against anyone, but benefits everyone and that we must treat those who disagree
with us on this issue with respect and compassion — and then to take
action by speaking truth to power, advocating for this fundamental good
of our society and voting their conscience at the ballot box.

Many people describe our country as currently being engaged in a “culture
war.” A century-and-a-half ago, we were engaged in a civil war.
Now, as then, the conflict puts the future prospects of our democracy
at stake. Now, as then, no more apt words can describe the moment than
those spoken by President Abraham Lincoln in what has become the most
famous speech in American history: “It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us . . . that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish
from the earth.”